Since World War II, seeking national glory on the battlefield has become socially unacceptable. Countries now pour their national psyche into that great champion of industry: the car firm. As representatives of their homelands, automobile manufacturers live up to a national ‘meta-brand’, an image that is shared by its compatriots. National karma can now be read in meta-brands as if they were a pack of tarot cards.

Italian brands (Ferrari, FIAT, Alfa, etc.): hot, racy, and a little hydrophobic. French brands (Renault, Peugeot,Citroen, etc.): stylish, flamboyant and quirky. German brands (BMW, Mercedes, VW, etc.): technically proficient and austere, combining technical proficiency with a hint of condescension. America (Ford, GM): large, brash a bit dim-witted and powerful. Japan (Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc.): reliable.

Building cars which do not conform to an established national stereotype is risky business. Honda, co-owner of the quality automobile mind space, tried to rebel against the Japanese meta-brand for anodyne family cars with the European-style NSX supercar. In spite of its impressive technical specification, the aluminium bodied mid-engined marvel never caught the market’s imagination. In 2005, the company sold 207 NSX in North American, while Ferrari found homes for 1,420 of their fragile steeds. 

The Germans "get it." VW knows its national meta-brand embodies an image of solid quality at a premium price (a fancy way of saying they overcharge us for a car made the way it should be in the first place). Facing an onslaught from Far Eastern value brands, VeeDub needed to offer products further down the price range that wouldn't sully its reputation for quality.

So, in 1986, they became majority stockholders of Spain’s SEAT. In 1991, they bought [what was then] Czechoslovakia’s Skoda. In both cases, the Germans were successful. They tidied things up a bit, slipped German platforms under foreign bodies and called it sehr gut.

The commercial logic of assembling brands to surmount meta-brand limitations suggests that there could be a great deal more cross-border portfolio building. By now, one would expect the Far Eastern brands to be sniffing round BMW and Porsche.

That that they are not doing so is partly because the newcomers are still far from reaching their potential. They do not yet have the means to be taking on the world’s automotive aristocracy. In any case, the feeding frenzy is going on elsewhere.

British brands deserve their place amongst the grandees of the industry. Yet the British meta-brand is deceptively multi-faceted. While the overall reputation is for conservative styling and country house interiors, the cars themselves seem to fit every niche imaginable.

Germany may make the best luxury cars in the world, yet Rolls-Royce is the most famous. Italy may have Ferrari and Maserati, yet both are eclipsed by the divine Jaguar E-Type. Jeep may be home on the range, but Land Rover rules an empire. Britain has a marque for every purpose. But the extraordinary thing is that the Brits are the very last to understand what they are about.

Take the [small cap] Mini. It’s one of the great British icons, whose launch supposedly heralded a small car revolution. Leaving aside some of the original model’s dead-end technology– such as the gearbox in the sump and the rubber-cone suspension– the only thing really wrong with the car was precisely what the British motorist considered its greatest asset: its diminutive dimensions.

BMW, however, saw the Mini as a kind of cute (if poorly built) sports car. When it designed a successor, the result preserved the sparkling ride and cheeky styling, but presented it in a much larger package. Unlike the original, the [all cap] MINI is now a major export success.

How about Rolls-Royce, perhaps the most imperious marque on Earth? The British believe quality comes with hand-crafting: building the cars like they were stately homes, complete with squeaky leather chairs and a gargoyle on the hood. Then there was Bentley, famed as the fastest trucks in the world. Both these brands are now in German hands– and all the better for some salutary lessons in quality standards.

This is not a story of British industrial decline; foreigners do not pick up British brands out of charity. But there is a caveat: the soggy little island can be a quagmire for the unwary.

Witness poor old Jaguar. What did Jaguar ever do to deserve lectures from Ford? As an underdog– or should I say undercat– Jaguar had the bravado to snarl at the opposition with inspiring designs. All that was lacking was quality, an area in which Ford were hardly qualified to provide advice.

And so the Yanks stuffed Jaguar so full with cash it grew corpulent and complacent. Ford is now on a crash diet. Perhaps that will be the lesson it can teach its British pet. 

In short, the deck may be reshuffled, but the wise automotive players know that the cards remain the same.

Quick! Which is bigger: San Antonio, Texas or San Diego, California? It’s San Diego. And here’s the kicker: a classroom of German students is more likely to get the right answer than you are, for one simple reason: more of them have heard of San Diego than San Antonio. Try another one. Should GM build the new Chevrolet Malibu? Despite auto industry execs’ huge salaries, you, a car guy or gal, are more likely to get it right than GM's top execs. And for the same reason: your gut instincts are more reliable than factual analysis.

In his book “Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking,” author Malcolm Gladwell points to a growing body of evidence that puts the kibosh on the notion that decision-makers always do their best work when they’ve got plenty of time and exhaustive information at their disposal. Gladwell says that decision-makers often do a better job using less information and less analysis. In situations as diverse as heart attack diagnosis, military planning and running an NBA franchise, fast reactions win the day. 

Of course, this axiom doesn’t apply to every situation. Automakers need smart analytical people with reams of data to design combustion chambers, purchase steel, manage currency fluctuation risk, and other complicated information processing tasks. But at the top management level, executives would make better decisions by being ‘fast and frugal’ with both time and information.

Imagine the meeting where GM decided on whether or not to green light the Pontiac Aztek. No doubt GM’s in-depth statistical analysis indicated a ready market for the Aztek’s unique combination of abilities. (Lest we forget, the Aztek was Detroit’s first CAD-CAM creation.) A semi-informed enthusiast would have taken one look at the mutant minivan and questioned the product design department’s sanity right from the git-go. 

Bad decision-making mars the history of The Big 2.5. Instead of anticipating gas price instability with large fuel economy improvements, Detroit bet the farm on large SUVs. Instead of dealing with the ‘jobs bank’ and related issues, management simply signed off. Instead of engineering one class-competitive minivan, GM spread its TWAT-winning design over four brands. And so on.

Decision failures of this scope and type occur for one of two reasons. First, ego and self-interest. A doctor refuses to believe that a four-step chart can diagnose chest pain better than he can. An NBA general manager imagines he sees potential in an underachieving player. A high-level GM executive sees the Uplander as a hit that will shower him with reflected glory. Thus smart people make dumb decisions.

Second, an environment of excessive informational analysis subverts ‘fast and frugal’ decision-making. A doctor looks at charts rather than the patient. A general in a war game overwhelms his subordinates with orders and intelligence, rather than freeing them to react to battleground conditions. Or as GM managers discuss the details of the Impala SS, no one stops to ask “Why the heck is this Corvette-engined thing front wheel-drive?”

Gladwell notes that fast, frugal and information-sparse decision-making tends to produce conservative, obvious and safe decisions. This would seem to run counter to the “Bold Moves” rhetoric currently infecting Detroit. But safe, obvious moves are exactly what The Big 2.5 needs.

Successful automakers follow a remarkably simple formula: build a car people want and keep making it better. The Porsche 911, the Chevrolet Corvette, the BMW 3-Series, the Toyota Corolla/Camry, and Honda Civic/Accord are all decades-old models, updated every few years. Sometimes, even the domestics get this right (Ford Mustang, GM pickups, Chrysler minivans). Selling last year’s model with slight improvements is a safe, obvious and profitable course.

In contrast, it takes “courage” to design, build and market a “revolutionary” minivan to ‘active-lifestyle’ Gen-Xers; or launch an Audi-shaped Ford sedan; or build a hot looking sports car with less luggage space than Margaret Thatcher’s old handbag. In general, Detroit’s biggest collective ‘bold’ decision is to constantly ditch existing models in pursuit of The Next Big Thing, whether it’s a so-not-an-SUV Crossover or a B-segment fuel sipper. That’s delusional aggressive management at its best.

Decades of deliberate data-rich decisions have left the Detroit automakers in their current predicament. Ford’s hiring of CEO Alan Mulally– who has promised to “recognize our reality and deal with it”– may indicate that a new breed of management is coming. Alas, Ford pulled Mulally out of Boeing’s bean counter hangar, not the one with burnout marks and oil stains. GM’s Wagoner never met a car he didn’t like; his Car Czar Bob Lutz is egomania’s poster, um, “boy.” And DCX’ LaSorda neutered the one designer who could have rescued his company (Ralph Gilles).

Again, smart men all. But one wonders if any of them are capable of making the piercing glimpses into the obvious that their employers’ need to survive.

It’s no secret that The Detroit News (DTN) likes to cheer for the home team. It’s also no surprise that the financially challenged paper imports low-cost out-of-town talent to satisfy their product needs– just like the domestic automakers they support. So when I read Washington Post writer Warren Brown’s analysis of GM’s fortunes on the DTN website, I was hardly stunned to discover a happy clappy Pollyanna puff piece. Like his prickly personality, Brown’s nose for news is distinctly stuffy; his piece embodies and elevates mindless pro-GM optimism to new heights.

“What is it about the human condition that so delights in the negative?” Brown’s opening sentence demands. (I’m feeling you Warren.) Clearly, GM naysayers have put Brown’s nose out of joint. To avoid any accusations of dancing on GM's grave– sorry, jinxing The General’s rehab, let’s skip to the bit of Brown’s bombast that has captured the attention of the GM faithful, and do a little factual intervention.

Never one to miss an opportunity to lord it over the boorish riff-raff commonly known as his colleagues (I’m feeling you Warren), Brown chastises auto scribes for continuing to question (publicly!) GM’s viability. In fact, these know-nothing car hacks are so blinkered by their negative nature they fail to recognize that The General has “rediscovered its fighting and innovative spirits.”  

“There is proof in the new Saturn Aura sedan and the new Chevrolet Silverado pickup truck, which together swept the North American car and truck of the year honors at the show — ironically, awards given by some of the journalists who later were questioning GM's ability to survive.”

While TTAC’s reviewer wouldn’t have given the gong to the Silverado, I’ll spot Brown that one (you feeling me Warren?). But pinning GM’s future on Aura sales is like depending on an infantry assault to defeat an entrenched machine gun position. The truth is the Aura is getting slaughtered.

In its first three months, Saturn sold 19,746 Auras. If the model sustains those numbers– and that’s a big “if”– the Aura will generate roughly 80k sales per year. While the projected annual tally would dwarf ’05 sales of the similarly platformed Saab 9-3 (24,133), it would fail to surmount the, gulp, Buick Lucerne (96,515). To put that into perspective, last year GM sold 323,981 Chevrolet Impalas, 312,747 Cobalt/HHR’s, 157,644 G6’s and 163,853 Chevrolet Malibus.

To put THAT into perspective, between 34 and 60 percent of those models went to rental fleets. In other words, in the battle for the mass market, the award-winning pride of Detroit Saturn Aura is another, even smaller, damp squib.

Anyway, Brown’s nose may not be growing like Pinocchio’s, but he certainly doesn’t know a scam when he sees one. Our Capital correspondent views the press' skepticism about the Chevrolet Volt concept car as yet more evidence that GM critical TTAC-types are simply cynical bastards. Brown considers the Volt “tangible proof” of GM’s right-minded “intentions.”

Yes, well, the road to bankruptcy is paved with good intentions. While GM has hoodwinked Brown and his ilk by claiming that the lithium-ion battery-powered Volt will hit showrooms in three to five years, experts are snorting coffee out their noses.

“Lithium-ion chemistry still has issues for automotive applications,” Don Runkle told Bloomberg News. The former GM engineer and chairman of battery maker EaglePicher Holdings Inc. isn't buying GM's development timeline. “Everyone tries to pooh-pooh thermal runaway (overheating), but this is nasty stuff. If it screws up, you have a dead serious fire on your hands.”

Never mind analyzing the facts; Brown is too busy mocking the “media murmuring”: “Is GM serious? How can they afford it? Is this just a ploy to get money from the federal government? Toyota will probably beat them to the punch first, don't you think? It's a good idea but so what? It'll take them 10 years to bring it to market.” 

As the Brits would say, you gotta laugh, mate. The same man who raises a condescending arched eyebrow at the “irony” of automotive journalists handing out awards to the company whose survival they question smirks at implications that the Volt is a ploy for federal subsidies. Yet he recognizes, welcomes even, The Big Two Point Five’s post-Volt request for a $500m federal hand-out to develop automotive battery technology.

Hang on; doesn’t the fact that GM [alone] can’t afford such mission critical, company-saving research trigger any alarm bells for the Capitol curmudgeon? Nope, he’s off politicizing the debate, defending the government handout as a way to avoid foreign troop engagements.

Oh wait, that’s just me being negative again. Luckily, Brown's gonna cut us death watchers a bit of slack. “Perhaps such chatter is inevitable. It is easier to believe in failure than it is to achieve, or sustain success.” Hey Warren; do me a favor. Tell it to GM.   

As read by Robert Farago below. 

[Read the original DTN article here.]

I’m 31, single and happy. So obviously my mother is constantly nagging me to get hitched and give her grandchildren. Even my sister’s impending marriage has failed to distract her; she’ll never be content until, presumably, I am not. Perhaps she’s right. I’m the only unmarried man at my weekly poker game. My best friend is expecting his first child this summer. If I were honest, I might admit I’m at the age when oat-sowing men settle down, produce offspring and molt. I can, however, offer at least one compelling reason for not introducing my spawn upon the world’s stage: I'd fit the Suzuki XL7's psychographic profile.

Trivia buffs, scholars of ancient history and encyclopedia-reading geeks know the first month of the year is named for the Roman god Janus. Janus didn’t have any special powers. His entire claim to fame was based on having two faces, one on the front of his head and one on the back. Since Janus could keep an eye on what was coming as well as what was going, he was placed in charge of gates and doors, transitions, and beginnings and endings. Being two faced also meant he could talk out of two mouths at the same time. Kinda like Toyota.

Toyota spends millions of dollars touting themselves as the automotive equivalent of the Sierra Club. They’re out to save the planet with their Hybrid Synergy Drive and put OPEC sheiks on the public dole with their fuel sipping econoboxes. They’re so magnanimous they’re sharing their hybrid technology with Ford and Nissan (and anyone else willing to pay the price).

Toyota’s even bragging that their new manufacturing plants will produce no waste to clog the landfills. Yes, the birds are singing in the trees and daisies are blooming in the meadows thanks to Toyota. And then there’s the Tundra.

Toyota makes no bones about it: they want to be a major player in America’s lucrative full-size pickup market. After years of twiddling their toes in the water with a size 30-slim Tundra, they finally cowboyed-up and built them a gen-u-ine giant. The new Toyota Tundra is every bit as gi-normous and gluttonous as the Dodge Rams, Chevrolet Silverados and Ford F150's it faces. 

And they’re promoting it heavily. Over three-quarters of Toyota's NAIAS stand was dedicated to the Tundra. The display featured the he-man image the Japanese automaker wants to associate with their mega machine. And you can bet the Tundra’s advertising budget will be equal to or greater than that of their tree-hugger specials. Combined.

Meanwhile, Toyota’s playing footsie with federal regulations. Their Texas-built pickup hits dealer showrooms in February– at the same time other manufacturers are beginning to introduce some of their 2008 models. But Toyota is adamant the new Tundra is an ’07. That’s because the U.S. government is changing the way they calculate the fuel mileage ratings for ‘08 model year pickups. 

The new procedures will make the numbers on the window sticker more realistic (i.e. lower). ToMoCo can’t risk lower numbers against competition’s higher-rated ’07 models. They’ll get to display the higher numbers for a few months before the (unchanged) ’08 models go on sale this fall with ratings 8 to 12 percent lower than the ‘07s.

As you can imagine, Toyota’s heavy emphasis on their new gas-guzzling leviathan hasn’t gone unnoticed by auto-oriented environmentalists. In fact, environmental groups are finally facing reality: their automotive eco-darling is (gasp!) nothing more than a business. A business that conforms to all CAFE regulations, of course,  but will do whatever it takes to make a profit. 

Some environmentalists are none-too-pleased to discover Toyota’s enviro-friendly posture was based more on marketing and profits than saving the planet. The greenies are indignant, and they're striking back. 

Backed by groups like the Rainforest Action Network, The Freedom From Oil Campaign (FFOC) has put Toyota on notice: no more “free pass.” According to an FFOC statement, the group's launching a new campaign designed to ensure that “auto makers are taking the interim steps needed to show that they are truly committed to fuel economy and not just good PR.” 

While commending Toyota for its past record for fuel economy, they’ve added the transplant to their list of targets. It may not be long before the FFOC organizes pickets outside Toyota dealerships, as they’ve done at Ford dealerships. The Toyota Tundra could become the tree-hugger's next lightning rod, replacing the (so-ten-minutes-ago) Hummer H2.

You have to wonder why it took environmentalists this long to see the light (heavy?). Toyota’s trucks have never been what you’d call “parsimonious” with petrol. The automotive press has consistently panned their two hybrid SUVs for their disappointing real world fuel economy. Once the 2008 testing procedures are in place, it’ll be interesting to see where Toyota falls on the charts and how the more realistic numbers will affect opinions of their greenmobiles.

As a company that exploits its environmental responsibility, Toyota can't be pleased to find the eco-radicals on their case. The company will have to spin like a whirling dervish to handle the fallout. I’m confident, though, that they’ll pull out all the stops to protect their green rep. I can see it now: “Clean air for oxygen breathers courtesy of Toyota’s Hybrid Synergy Drive and carbon dioxide for plant life by the Toyota Tundra. We have the ecosystem covered!” Janus would be smiling– on both sides of his head.

Hybrid cars are the automaker’s equivalent of straight teeth: everyone wants them. Carmakers without hybrids are beginning to look, well, a little unkempt. Not wanting to be perceived as a snaggletooth, Nissan joins the club with its new-for-‘07 Altima Hybrid. The company describes its first foray into gas-electric frugality as "the first hybrid that drives like a Nissan." The firm’s marketers clearly intend for Nissan’s self-fashioned sporting image to set the Altima hybrid apart from its key competitors. They’re also convinced, presumably, that consumers will know what this tagline means.

According to yesterday's Yahoo finance, Apple juice is the Detroit’s drink of the moment. Mark Fields, FoMoCo’s Prez Del Americas: "I admire their pure understanding of the brand and the type of customer they're going after.” Mark LeNeve, GM’s Veep of SS&M (Sales, Service and Marketing): "We're really trying to be more like companies like Apple, where we can innovate and move faster.” Eric Ridenour, COO of the C in DCX: "I think a fresh, creative mind is something that you can appreciate and focus simply on some complicated things." While the Big Two Point Five’s top execs are happy to sing the praises of the iMac, iPod, Apple TV and iPhone, it's lip service. They’re unwilling to learn the true lessons of Apple’s recent success. 

Apple Lesson Number 1: Revolution, then evolution

When Steve Jobs returned to ailing Apple, he cut product lines into three core offerings, cut hardware licensing agreements with third party vendors, replaced Macintosh’s Operating System and orchestrated the ouster of the company’s CEO. AFTER Jobs consolidated power, stopped the bleeding and banked some cash, the company expanded its product line. Apple was then in a position to take a chance on a “game-changing technology” like the iPod. And keep improving it on a regular basis.

“GM expects the Chevrolet Volt to be a breakthrough product.” Uh, I don't think so. Although GM has no shortage of engineering expertise, GM is far too sick to realize anything even half this ambitious. Unless the company transforms itself, it will not survive to see its electric cars wean Americans from Arab oil.

Detroit’s pattern of gradual tweaks to the status quo will not rescue the languishing leviathans. They must cut or sell superfluous brands, focus product lines, restructure supply and labor contracts, and defenestrate the senior managers whose neglect drove these once great companies into the ground.

Apple Lesson Number 2: Lead from the front

The Yahoo article counsels the domestics to imitate Apple and focus on customer appeal. This Apple does not do. It doesn’t conduct customer clinics to ask specific demographic groups whether they like a potential product. It doesn’t float trial balloons; unveiling new ideas to trade show audiences YEARS before they begin production. Apple creates something inherently appealing and builds it.

At best, a fast-acting auto manufacturer needs three years to move from concept to production. By the time a new Camaro– sorry, car comes to market, the customer survey data it’s based upon has expired. AND it’s old news. If automakers want to live on the cutting edge, they must lead their customers. They must abandon auto show onanism and unveil complete and completely radical new products, coming to a showroom near you in months, not years. 

Apple Lesson Number 3: Put the visionaries in charge

Steve Jobs surrounds himself with top-drawer creative engineers that propose far out new technologies. When he sees a product that appeals to him (that conforms to his strategic vision for the company), Apple makes it.

A former CFO runs GM. A former airplane designer runs Ford (or not). A productivity genius (or not) helms Chrysler. While there are plenty of “car guys” charging around Detroit’s halls of power, they’re not in charge. No car guy would ever green light a Pontiac Aztek, Jeep Compass or Chrysler's new Sebring.

Apple Lesson Number 4: The brand isn’t everything; it’s the only thing

In general, Apple has stood by its brand identity and product naming conventions since it began business. The iMac started as a Bondi blue colored jelly bean-shaped computer. The name remained through numerous motherboard revisions and a LifeSavers roll of colors. Later, Apple repackaged the iMac as a floating flat screen design. Today it is the all-in-one unit. Throughout the configuration changes, Apple products have retained their identity as quirky yet reliable, user-friendly (yet expensive) computer-related products.

Mark Field’s paean to Apple’s “pure understanding of the brand” is a strange observation for an executive whose company has neglected and abused both brands (Lincoln, Mercury, Jaguar) and models (Town Car, Cougar, S-Type) for decades. At the same time, GM is happy to slap the Caddy badge on a pickup, and Chrysler builds so many different products at so many different price points that the name has become virtually meaningless.

Let's do the math. Of the all the US nameplates Toyota produced in 1996, 55% are still for sale, including the continuation of the Camry’s 24-year run. Fifty percent of Honda's model names also extend back to that date. That’s a stark contrast with Chevrolet (13%), Pontiac (17%), Buick (0%), Cadillac (0%), Ford (23%), Mercury (17%), Lincoln (33%), Chrysler (40%) and Dodge (34%).

“If I only had a killer car, then I'd be as meteorically successful as Apple,” bleat The Big Two Point Five. Nope. If they were healthy companies with product guys at the helm, unwaveringly focused on the long-term development of their products, then they’d be prepared to seize upon new technologies and develop insanely great products– just like Apple. 

[Read the original Yahoo Finance article here.] 

Last spring, reporters forced GM CEO Rabid Rick Wagoner to confront his company’s demons. At the opening of a Russian assembly plant, in the midst of US plant closures, sell-offs and buyouts; scribes raised the unholy specter of Toyota’s usurpation of GM’s “World’s Largest Automaker” crown. Wagoner told the assembled throng that GM would “like to stay number one” but it wasn’t the company’s "top priority.” New Year, new tune: "I like being number one,” Wagoner told Detroit auto show survivors. “I think our people take pride in it."

So Rick likes being number one. God knows he’s good at it; hanging onto power despite losing billions of dollars and overseeing a precipitous decline in the automaker's market share. And it's reassuring to hear that he “thinks” his people take pride in GM’s mantle (Vince Lombardi’s got nothing on Rick).

But RR's optimism couldn't counteract the bad news at yesterday’s automotive analyst hand-holding session. The beancounters had counted beans and concluded that the General's cash flow will remain negative this year– despite stripping out billions of dollars in fixed costs and plans to jettison sell even more of their remaining assets (e.g. $265m for GM's Arizona proving grounds).

Chief Financial Officer Fritz Henderson attributed some of the company’s predicted cash burn to a $1b increase in capital spending. The extra cash will pay for ongoing transmission upgrades (from four to six-speeds) and foreign expansion.

When pressed on the effect of this increased outlay on the company’s liquidity, Henderson said the company could take the hit, but admitted that GM’s cash flow was 'not anywhere near an adequate position’ (which is a bit like saying a person who’s lost is not as well-oriented as they could be). Equally ominously, Henderson spoke of “serious financial pressure” throughout ’07.

After this downbeat conclave, Rabid Rick launched yet another charm offensive. Schmoozing with Fortune Senior Editor Alex Taylor III, Rick revealed the home team’s latest defense: stop nickel and diming us! “People ask when is the business profitable and our objectives have to be much bigger than that. It is not an issue of can you make a nickel – that doesn't do anything for anybody. We need to get good profit and then it is very important that we generate good cash flow.” So now we know: making a nickel isn't much better than losing $10.6b.

Meanwhile, GM’s product mix continues its troubled evolution. While all eyes were on the plug-in Chevrolet Volt concept car, The Next Big Thing (Malibaura?) and the blingier Cadillac CTS, Henderson confirmed our suspicions that the the forthcoming US-spec Astra won't earn GM a single one of those not-so-precious nickels.

An unfavorable dollar – Euro exchange rate and European labor and transportation costs preclude the possibility of profit. Apparently, the Astra is merely a "bridge" product for Saturn, a temporary replacement for the Ion designed to "prove" Saturn’s new Euro-style handling/performance gestalt. Huh.

At the same time, Henderson said that GM’s recent sale of controlling interest in its GMAC finance unit was critical to lowering the subvention cost to GM. Translation: GM will probably use aggressive leasing tactics in the future– especially if it can boost residuals through lower rental fleet sales.

Of all its downsizing moves, the reduction in GM’s fleet sales is, perhaps, the most telling. It’s a sure sign that GM is fully committed to becoming a vastly smaller enterprise than it was at the beginning of Wagoner’s tenure. It’s a tacit admission that the company can no longer rely on sheer volume to make its crust. 

In fact, it's increasingly clear that GM has a new, Delphinian survival strategy: stabilize the US market (at whatever percentage) and expand abroad. Even as it stands, GM sells more cars abroad than it does in the United States. Buick is dead here, thriving in China. GM is tightening its belt stateside, preparing to bid for Malaysia's Proton.

At this point, all Rabid Rick wants to do is stop the arterial spray on his home turf. That’s why he was so sanguine about Toyota’s rise back in June. He was breaking ground on the company’s best bet for survival: Russia, India and China.

Rick’s “bigger” vision could work– if GM has enough time. While GM may make some progress towards a healthier revenue stream in '07 with a better product mix and reduced incentives, the real gains will continue to be made on the cost side. And that’s just not good enough. GM’s weak balance sheet makes it highly vulnerable to setbacks and shocks, which are on their way.

What the Hell’s a Suzuki’s SX4? I know it’s my job to know about these things, but I swear the test car greeting me upon my return from Old Blighty was the first one I’ve ever seen. If first impressions last, this tall, decidedly Japanese runabout says Subaru Forrester meets Scion xA on the suburban side of town. (In keeping with the parlance of our times, Suzuki shuns the “w” word and calls the SX4 a crossover.) A quick walk around revealed four big wheels, four big disc brakes, a Prius style double A-pillar and an AWD badge. Hmmm…? Could this sub-radar Suzuki be a sleeper?

I would really like automakers to cease, desist, and forevermore quit trying to sell me a swayback mare by suggesting it’s actually the Pegasus-winged and My Little Pony-hued reincarnation of Secretariat. Market-speak speakers ought to be hung by their Gucci belts until they learn this lesson. Segment-buster? Lifestyle? Brand frickety DNA? Look, I understand it’s show business not show pleasure, but does everything have to be hyped down to its subatomic particles? Furthermore, there’s no need to yet once again place each of your obscenely-paid executives on stage reading bad jokes off a teleprompter with all the finesse of a teenager asking a girl out on a first date. Stop. Please. I’m losing the will to live.

Yes, I’m a little cranky on the third press preview day of the Really Big Day-twaa Auto Shoe. Bumping from one press conference to another in fashionably constricting slip-ons has taken its toll on both mind and toes. Fortunately, the obsessive compulsives at Lexus have once again demonstrated they sweat the small stuff. They engaged the services of professional masseuses for the sole purpose [sic] of rubbing us fatigued media geezers the right way. As if…

Huh? Where was I? I know what you’re thinking: blubber on some other e-shoulder, you coddled, cosseted, and catered-to little creature. A couple of days glaring at gleaming new sheetmetal, chatting with Jessica Alba turntable clones and gorging on high-caloric (and free!) treats, and you’re tired? Does it hurt and have a temperature? Yes and no. Think Stendhal Syndrome combined with Invasion of the Deadline Snatchers and you know where I’m coming from.

Anyway, the Lexus stand holsters two showpieces: the LF-A supercar and the IS-F sedan, both in concept (wink-wink) form. Some of you have bitched that I haven’t said anything about the actual machinery. So here it is: no matter where it sits inside a car’s chassis, V10’s suck. And Lexus needs a tuner division like Land Rover needs a city car. (Thorazine and fast driving don’t mix.) Happy? 

What in the G5 dominated world is with all the alphanumeric auto nomenclature? Even Charlie Epps would find it hard to memorize all the bechromed badges adoring the butts of Detroit’s multi-million-dollar dream puffs. There’s the MKR, Q7 V12 TDI, C-XF and the FT-HS (in any color as long as it’s BLK). Without peeking, try to tell me which automaker produced what and I’ll suggest you have too much time on your hands. While backing slowly away.

I’ve been occupying my mind with this sort of meaningless intellectual frivolity, now that the manufacturers have thrown the PR pasta against the video wall. I wasn’t alone in wandering around aimlessly seeking angle. I was playing with an interactive kiosk at the MINI display this afternoon when I suddenly realized that I was being filmed by a German guy. (Yes, we’re there: the media is eating its own.) A half hour later I was idly playing with slot cars (magnetized, so they can’t crash, obviously) at the VW display, when German guy was once again burning up lithium batteries on my behalf. We’ll be meeting at a leather bar in Munich later in the year.

Juan Pablo Montoya was here. Well, more over there, behind the ropes, far away from the dreaded press pack. He was taking a contractually-obligated bow to coincide with the debut of the stickers that have been printed to adorn his NAS-cookiecutter-CAR. Who knew that before the new season starts he’s required to change his name to John Paul II? Not me.

As I snapped a photo of race boy, I leaned over the barbed wire security net by a centimeter, whereupon an earpiece-adorned thug scowled and waved me back. As the day progressed, I got shooed out of camera range by a perky television reporter, and two guards told me not to touch the sturdy-seeming divider bar separating we throng from the Maserati enclosure or the yawning model contained therein would strip naked and dance the horizontal mambo. Maybe I shouldn’t have worn a T-shirt that says “No pictures!”

Well, it’s time to turn off the lights on another Detroit Auto Show. Before I leave, I’d like to share a couple parting thoughts. 1) The Chinese are coming. Their insanely cheap vehicles will have to be insanely cheap; five minutes later you’ll want to buy another one. 2) Toyota’s stand at this year’s show was comprised of three cars and thirteen trucks. That’s not good. 3) I’ll have the remainder of this toasted potato bread crouton with pulled pork shoulder and Gruyere cheese with braised red cabbage and spring onion; Risotto cake with haricot verts, mixed greens and dual pepper coulis; and mint chocolate and peppermint mousse towers in a doggy bag, Mr. Mercedes Waiter.

I don’t mean to be [too] snarky, but why is it that whenever Bill Gates deigns to bless the little people with his e-presence, all I can do is stare at his hair? Does he cut it himself? Or is that what happens when you start racking up the billions: you let your looks go to seed and no one dares tell you your hair looks like something an amphetamine crazed Cuts 2000 trainee literally whipped-up on a bad day? I suppose there’s a no degree of separation thing here, as Bill appeared at the NAIAS (IPPI) to tell Alan (who works for Billy) that his Ford products are great and will soon be even greater with Microsoft’s electronics on board. MS WORD! These guys are denial.

You sure do bump into a celebrity or two whilst taking laps of the COBO show floor– especially if you’re dorky enough to lavish that most post modern of sobriquets on auto scribes. Why, look! It’s Consumer Reports’ David Champion. There’s Automobile Magazine’s Robert Cumberford and Jean Jennings. AutoWeek’s Dutch Mandel is hard at work. Click and Clack are right on track. I make it a point to shake everyone’s hand just so I can watch clock their face when I tell them I work for The Truth About Cars. (FYI: it’s something between blissful ignorance and bemused revulsion.)

I also spot Simon Cox, the GM designer responsible for the 750hp Caddy Cien from ‘02; a bad ass coupe so perfectly proportioned and cab-forward thinking that Cadillac couldn’t build it because Miami condo loads of tassel loafered DCTSTSXLRSRX owners would have died of embarrassment. Needless to say, Cox sports the sina qua non of trendy art school grads: oddly-shaped eyeglasses. It’s true. Spot a pair of frames that appear to have been fashioned by delirium tremoned hands out of a wire clothes hanger and chances are better than excellent the nose holding them aloft belongs to a guy who draws cars for a living. Martian-themed footwear is another dead giveaway.

Guess what? I found an automaker whose products you should rush out and buy. For breakfast, Mercedes proffered chocolate-and-mint yogurt shooters, savory filled croissants, proscuitto and mascarpone frittatas with fire roasted peppers, and mixed berries and cream. I rested rink side, inhaling the heady aroma of fresh-cut roses, watching figure skaters avoid being crushed beneath the all-season technology underpinning Stuttgart's latest steamroller, waiting for the waitress to bring me my ill-gotten grub. Surprisingly, there wasn’t a single beach towel on a single seat.

SMART, a brand born for blonde college co-eds, was populated by product specialists no older than my latest ATM withdrawal who shared their enthusiasm with such sincerity that it’s almost as if they weren’t paid actors. Between them and the PR kids [Tony] hawking Scion, the auto industry has cornered the market on marketing to the youth market. I had two questions for MINI’s mousketeers: what the hell was MINI thinking when they equipped the new Cooper S with a non-functional hood scoop? And: What in God’s name was MINI thinking when they equipped the new Cooper S with a non-functional hood scoop?

After that automotive koan was met with uncomprehending silence (and a polite smile), I took a moment to pause and reflect on the fact that the Porsche GT3 that I want to own already owns me. That and the fact that if you say "Wendelin Weideking" enough times the sound will eventually lull you into a meditative trance of sufficient depth to realize that Audi shouldn't be building a mid-engined 911 rival with the Toyota FJ Cruiser's blind spot– unless it makes shed loads of money like the Cayenne.

The Dark Lords of DCX chose to provide box lunches to the assembled throngs. The hand-out was timed to coincide with the reveal of the company’s 318th Jeep concept vehicle since purchasing the brand along with the corresponding Chrysler dregs. Yep, one fun, imaginative Jeep flight of fancy after another. And what do they bring to market?  The Compass. Talk about indigestion.

With so much free bottled water, beer, coffee, juice, beer, fruit smoothies and beer on tap, journalists soon learned the lay of the land restroom-wise. In this I was no different. Thankfully, my non-Viper snake shakeage (yes I’m a boy named Lyn) was finished in time to witness Cadillac win the Now I Know Why I Bothered to Come Award. A string quartet segued into a duo of violin-sawing rappers followed by what seems to be the entire CTS project team getting up to wax poetic about their efforts. Despite all that, the new and improved, vitamin-fortified, rich ‘n creamy CTS is a hit.

Get this: the one time GM Car Czar Maximum Bob Lutz’s BS could plausibly intersect with reality and the guy’s off burning jet fuel somewhere. Gates should give Lutz a new Outlook. Or is that the other way round?

When we added a comments section to The Truth About Cars, I was determined that TTAC would not become what Jalopnik’s Mike Spinelli called “a picnic over a cesspool.” To that end, TTAC instituted a zero tolerance policy towards comments that flame/insult the website, its authors or fellow commentators. I’ve sent dozens of emails to offenders, explaining why their comment(s) were edited or deleted. I’ve also permanently banned seventeen subscribers from posting. I believe this policy has been a success. But I want to give you a chance to publicly vent your feelings on our editorial policies without fear of retribution. And here it is.

Given our “death/suicide watch” coverage, it’s no surprise that some readers continue to believe TTAC is biased against The Big Two Point Five. Some feel so strongly they consider us anti-American. First, I would remind these critics that the site contains both positive reviews of domestic product (Fusion, Navigator, GT500, Corvette, SSR, Outlook, etc.) and negative reviews of transplant vehicles (Tribeca, M5, Cayenne Turbo S, etc.). Second, criticizing American companies is not un-American— especially when you’re trying to alert these organizations to the dangers they face. If you beg to differ, well, differ away.

Meanwhile, anyone who wants to forward a more positive perspective on Detroit’s fortunes is invited to submit one or more 800-word editorials justifying their optimism. We’d also welcome any writer willing to chronicle the triumphs and tragedies of foreign or transplanted automakers (Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mercedes, BMW, etc.). In any case, rest assured that TTAC’s always open to editorials on any automotive subject, including opposing viewpoints. And, in our defense, our Detroit-centric coverage reflects limited resources rather than ambitions.

TTAC also stands accused of hypocrisy. Specifically, my editorial calling Bob Lutz an idiot had many wondering why I felt free to make such an undignified statement when they’re prohibited from making similar remarks about the site, its authors of other commentators. At the risk of making an invidious distinction, TTAC’s zero tolerance anti-flaming regs do NOT apply to the editorials themselves. Our essayists’ job: stimulate vigorous debate. If I/they must use hyperbole and deliberately provocative prose to achieve these goals, by God I/they will. If this double standard rankles, well, now’s the time to say so.

I’d also like to know if we’ve got our editorial mix right. Generally speaking, TTAC’s publishing a single piece per day, alternating between rants and reviews. I experimented for a bit, running my Jalopnik precasts in addition to the normal editorial posts. Would you like these audio features back again? What about QOTW (Question of the Week)? While we’re at it, should TTAC resurrect the “as read by” audio on the editorials and reviews? Do you want to see accompanying video, or are we best off sticking with writing?

Those are my concerns. But I don’t want to frame this debate. Let slip the dogs of war. Don’t hold back. Tell us what we’re doing wrong or, if you’re feeling charitable, what we’re doing right. No holds barred. No limits, save [a bit of] linguistic decency. And one more thing. Don’t think I get a thrill out of banning people from commenting here. As you might have guessed, I may not share these miscreants' opinions, but I share their passion, frustration and anger. Clearly, they don’t understand or appreciate the boundaries of civilized discourse. But it's equally obvious that they have strong beliefs. For that, and nothing else, I admire them. 

The Detroit News recently enlisted J.D. Power and Associates to help explain Detroit's pressure drop, and figure out how Ford and the other 1.5 can stop the rot. After gathering data from 500 survey takers registered on an opinions-for-cash website called Opinion Outpost, The Power That Is concluded that the domestics have their work cut out for them. (Surprise!) Only 40% of this infinitesimal sample of alleged intenders (‘cause if they weren’t intenders they wouldn’t get paid for the survey) would consider buying a domestic car, due to concerns about reliability, quality and fuel economy. 

Todd Wilson, J.D. Power’s Director of Automotive Research pegged the blame on a simple misunderstanding or, to use the phrase currently in vogue within Ford et al., a “perception gap.” “The perception of quality is the point,” Wilson opined. Apparently, “Asians just have a better image of building a better product.” This despite the fact that many of Ford's cars and trucks are nestling at the top of J.D.'s reliability and customer satisfaction surveys.

To tackle these PR issues, Ford's ad agency (JWT) commissioned Car and Driver to test the Fusion SEL AWD V6 against the Honda Accord EX-L V6 and Toyota Camry XLE V6. At Ford's behest, the buff book invited 600 C&D subs to FedEx Field in Washington, DC to drive the trio of mid-sized motors. In a nationwide ad campaign launched yesterday (look for a "Special Advertising Section" inside next month's C&D), Ford claimed the participants rated the Fusion tops in “Styling,” “Handling,” “Performance,” and “Fun to Drive."

[NB: Ford PR declined to provide TTAC with the test data or methodology. Sources who attended the event report that one of the test Accords' radio and VSA (Variable Stability Assist) were non-operational, and Ford 'aides' touted the Fusion’s features, but not the Toyota or Honda's.]  

Although inherently flawed (AWD vs. FWD?), the campaign reveals a new, feistier Ford. If only the general public shared the spinmeisters' optimism. The Detroit News' survey flagged one reason for a lack of consumer confidence in the Blue Oval: resale values. Now that the Taurus is ground chuck and the Freestar has been sucked into a black hole, the Blue Oval’s fleet of fleet-oriented vehicles is growing smaller, which will help restore used car values. On the other hand, FoMoCo has promised to fill Freestar fleet orders with an as-yet-unnamed product, and the Fusion, the muy picante Ford Escape and selected F-Series pickups are being dolled-up with attractive lease and finance offers. That's good for buyers, bad for sellers. 

In any case, with roughly 530k current year units in U.S. inventories, Big Al needs more metal moved. Looking backwards, 2.6% fewer American consumers cruised from showrooms with new whips this year, and Ford was hit hardest. Mulally’s minions managed to move a mere 2.9m units. That’s 250k less than last year’s slumping results. December’s 13 point slide resulted in more Blue Oval blues, as ToMoCo outsold Ford for the third month last year. To add insult to injury, Toyota ate all of Ford’s lost 8% of annual sales, and then some.

The cost of freedom from debt will be high for Ford. But for whom? United Auto Workers (UAW) President Ron Gettelfinger and Mulally have begun negotiations on the union's '07 contract. FoMoCo’s main mofo is optimistic, declaring that “nobody cares more about Ford than Ron Gettelfinger.” Translation: Big Al reckons the UAW’s survival depends on these negotiations as much as the Blue Oval’s. Unfortunately, with the corporate coffers at capacity, FoMoCo will be hard pressed to convince the UAW to do all the giving. 

Failure to succeed in ANY of these areas in ‘07 will hurt Ford’s chances for profitable operations within the next four years. With all eyes on Mulally, his motivation to succeed is personal, not just business. According to Casesa Strategic Advisors LLC, Ford’s $35m dollar man has hedged his bets. John Casesa says “if Mulally fails, then the [Ford] family will have to consider all options, including giving up the company.” If the family throws up its hands and surrenders, Mulally’s $3.6m stock options (and restricted units) would vest immediately; he would also line his pockets with twice his salary and projected bonus. Get ready for an interesting year.

In the late ‘70’s, Chrysler and Mark Knopfler had a lot in common. The automaker and the guitarist were both in dire straits. Unlike the British rock group, Chrysler’s sales were stuck at rock bottom. Most of the automaker’s offerings were badge engineered clones. Overproduction and their so-called “sales bank” had pushed inventory to an all-time high, dragging profits to an all-time low. Enter Lee Iacocca. Lee took draconian measures: cutting models, restructuring, trimming fat and introducing radical new models. Within a few years, Iacocca’s intervention had transformed a company on the brink of disaster into a profitable enterprise. Twenty years later, Chrysler’s come full circle. And once again, it’s time for intervention.

First, someone’s got to get Chrysler out of denial. The company must face the cold hard truth that they’ll never be General Motors, Toyota or (God forbid) Ford. By attempting to be a “full-line automaker,” Chrysler’s diluted their model lineup to the point where it’s become an incoherent farrago of fragmented failure. As part of this realization, Chrysler must also dump the GM mentality. They must stop looking at the next new model as The Next Big Thing: the car/truck/minivan that will save the company. Instead, Chrysler should take a holistic approach to their mental illness.

Chrysler should step back, take a deep cleansing breath, and reassess the role of each of their divisions. At least they have a good place to start. With just three divisions under their corporate umbrella, Chrysler’s ready to realign each division to target specific market segments (unlike the two other domestic automakers with eight divisions apiece,). A logical realignment: Dodge builds family transportation, Chrysler creates premium vehicles and Jeep handles all the truck/utility vehicles. 

With those demarcs clearly set and understood, Chrysler can finally set about killing overlapping, duplicative and extraneous models. Say goodbye to the Aspen, Crossfire, Stratus, Pacifica, Magnum (rolled into Charger), Town & Country, Nitro, Patriot, Compass, Viper, Sprinter (returned to Mercedes) and Commander. And while we’re at it, abort the Challenger.

Once that’s done, Chrysler can realign their remaining models within the new corporate structure. Dodge’s lineup would consist of an economy car (manufactured under their new agreement with China’s Chery but designed entirely on this side of the Pacific), a compact hatchback (Caliber), a family sedan and wagon (Charger/former Magnum) and a van (Caravan). To underline its commitment to value-for-money, every Dodge model should offer a BlueTec diesel engine option. 

Chrysler Division would offer a premium compact (next generation PT Cruiser with a better name), a premium midsize sedan and convertible (redesign of the redesigned Sebring), a premium sedan (300) and a luxury sedan and convertible (based on the E-class platform but totally American in design and execution). Every engine offered should be based on the Hemi— already about to be offered “free."

Jeep should keep their current lineup sans the faux Jeep models axed above and add a line of pickup trucks. Rather than try to out-mega GM, Ford and Toyota, Jeep should concentrate on the long-neglected compact truck market with a Wrangler-based midsize model (replacing the Dakota). Jeep should also offer a diesel option across the board and every 4WD model should be “trail rated.” 

Once this realignment is complete, Chrysler has to address their dealer network. Since the new regime would eliminate brand overlap, all three brands could be offered at every dealership. That said, culling is a big part of the program. Chrysler needs to make sure there aren’t too many dealerships in any one area; their dealerships should compete against other brands, not against each other. If this means closing or consolidating dealerships in metro areas, then do it. 

Along with “right-sizing” their dealer network, Chrysler should step-up and become the first major manufacturer to provide a totally “dealer-less” alternative for customers who desire it. If a buyer wants to shop, negotiate, arrange financing and close the deal on the internet, let them. Instead of haggling with a specific dealership, the customer would work through a centralized national or regional sales office. Once the transaction was complete, the customer would select where they wanted to take delivery, then go to the dealership to sign on the dotted line and pick up their vehicle. Consumers have no problems buying books, clothing, and even groceries over the internet.  Why should car shopping be any different?

If DCX is serious about keeping Chrysler Group alive, they’ll have to take some drastic measures. A band-aid here and a Prozac there may keep it limping along, but in the long term the underlying problems will keep resurfacing, driving Chrysler closer and closer to its demise. Recovery will require long term, intensive and painful therapy.  Last time, Dr. Lee had the right prescription. This time, let’s hope Dr. Z can make the right decisions, and give Chrysler a chance to return to full mental acuity and maybe even a hit or two.

Frisco is a bedroom community just north of Dallas. The Texas town is home to the Frisco Roughriders Double-A baseball team and an IKEA. If there isn’t an IKEA near you, wait ten minutes and check again. Meanwhile, in case you haven’t heard of this Swedish furnishings company, their massive stores combine excellent prices with trendy and efficient design. Need to furnish a 295 square foot living space on the cheap? IKEA is your answer. Need to survey the vehicular habits of the aspiring middle class? Their parking lot awaits.

As you might imagine, IKEA’s parking lot is filled with practical Japanese and stylish European transports. Yes, a few insensitive souls have the audacity to pick up their newly acquired furniture in an SUV or pick-up. But for the most part the Frisco IKEA parking lot is as politically correct as a Sierra Club picnic. This year’s Black Friday crowd was especially partial to Jetta TDI’s.

IKEA’s customers are the sort of trendy, informed suburban/urbanites who see SUV’s as rollover hazards and a danger to other vehicles. They believe that the bigger the vehicle, the more it embroils us in Iraq and the warmer the globe. While they appreciate the need to tow, tote and traverse the Texas outback, driving a great honking truck is not their thing. No way, no how.

Let’s motor on over to the northern fringe of Cow Town (otherwise known as Fort Worth, Texas). Here, where urban sprawl gives way to prairie grass land, you’ll find the “World’s Foremost Outfitter.” Cabela's is a gargantuan retail outlet catering to hunters, campers and anglers, selling everything from shotguns to camo socks. It’s part showroom, part aquarium and part Smithsonian Museum of Natural History.

You're less like to encounter European performance sedans in Cabela's parking lot than vegans at the Spring Creek Barbeque. Nine of ten automobiles parked thereabouts are pickups or SUV’s: Ford F150’s, Dodge Durangos, Chevy Suburbans, Jeep Wranglers, Toyota Tundras, etc. Cabela is temporary home to trucks that know the feel of dirt deep in their treads and mud over their axles; vehicles that pull horse trailers, bass boats, ATV’s and haul hay. There are acres of them.

The psyche of the average Cabela’s patron hasn’t changed since [the first] President Roosevelt took the oath of office. They love the outdoors. Although trucks have replaced equine companions of yore, their owners' passion for animals and conservation is deep and hands-on (killing critters is part of the program). City folk who hate their big rigs confuse them. Life without a truck or SUV? Well that’s just plain ridiculous. What good are cars that can’t pull a stump or haul a cord of wood? They ain’t practical.

Worlds collide in the massive suburbs that separate IKEA and Cabela's. Neighborhoods have one foot in the rugged outdoorsy Cabela’s lifestyle, and the other resting comfortably on a chic IKEA Tylösand ottoman. A Ford Fusion sits just a driveway away from a Dodge Ram MegaCab. No wonder The Big Two Point Five are busy producing “soft-roaders” like the Ford Edge, Lincoln MKX, Saturn Outlook and Vue, GMC Acadia and Buick Enclave. It's their Panglossian attempt to build the best of all possible vehicles for the “average” consumer.

Buyers on the IKEA side of the equation aren’t giving crossovers (CUV’s) a free ride. They are not impressed by the genre’s incremental improvement in gas mileage and the imperceptible decrease in dimension. As far as they're concerned, a CUV is a more defensible choice than an SUV in the same sense that a “regular” Whopper is healthier than its triple stacked iteration. They continue to deride automakers for “forcing” (seducing?) consumers into large, inefficient vehicles that are bad for the environment and, frankly, their own chances of accident survival.

On the Cabela’s side of the equation, CUV’s aren’t real trucks. End of story.

It's true; CUV’s are neither fish nor fowl. They are both inefficient AND outback aversive. So who wants something that looks and quaffs like an SUV but can't do what a proper SUV or pickup can do? The same people who own SUV’s but never tow, haul or mud-plug. They're working class people who fell in love with the SUV’s elevated seating position and the feeling of safety that comes from piloting a vehicle with a whole lot of sheet metal. They're not ready to come off their high horse– just yet.  

Or are they? The last two years have shown a dramatic relationship between soaring gasoline prices and withering SUV sales. Faster than changing environmental policy or fickle suburban fashion trends, pain at the pump is driving SUV refugees straight into the arms of manufacturers who've mastered the art of building small, fuel-efficient vehicles. American consumers are moving all the way from trucks to cars. Half-measure CUV’s won't save Motown from this inexorable migration.